Universities Should Be Unsafe For Political Correctness

The current code word being tossed around to protect political correctness from competition in the marketplace of ideas is "unsafe."

"I feel unsafe" has become the argument stopper on many university campuses. Efforts have been made to shut down controversial events or speakers, some of which have succeeded, at MIT, the University of Michigan, Northeastern University, Oxford, Hampshire College, Smith College, and other great universities, on the grounds that students would feel "unsafe." Students must, of course, be and feel physically safe in their dorms, classrooms, and campuses. That's what university and city police are for: to protect against physical assaults and threats. But no one on a university campus should be or feel safe or protected when it comes to the never-ending war of ideas.

An important role of the university is to challenge every idea, every truth, every sacred notion, even if challenge makes students (or faculty) feel intellectually uncomfortable, unsettled, or unsafe. There must be no safe spaces in the classroom or auditorium that protect members of the university community from dangerous, disturbing or even emotionally unsettling ideas.

There can be rules of civility that prevent shouting down opposing views, but these rules must be content-neutral, applicable in equal measure to politically correct and politically incorrect speech. Universities must not have acceptable ideas that are given greater protection that unacceptable ones. All ideas must compete on an equal footing in open marketplaces.

But what about ideas that really do make certain individuals or groups feel intellectually or emotionally unsafe -- ideas such as opposition to gay marriage, to a woman's right to choose abortion, to race-based affirmative action, to religion in general or to particular religions or religious practices, to Zionism or anti-Zionism? It is especially these unpopular ideas -- some of which were quite popular in the recent past -- that today need protection against the forces of political correctness that seek to stifle dissent in the name of safety.

So long as there is no realistic, imminent threat to physical safety -- such as an incitement to commit violence against gays, women, blacks, Jews, etc. -- the university must assure the safety of the politically incorrect speaker, student, faculty member, administrator or employee. The answer to bad speech must be good speech; the response to false ideas must be true ideas; the protection against dangerous ideas is effective rebuttal, not censorship.

The university should be an uncomfortable place for comfortable ideas. It should be a dangerous place for all deeply felt ideologies. It should be an unsafe place for political correctness or incorrectness. Ideas must live and die on their merits and demerits, so long as those espousing them are kept safe from physical intimidation or threats.

The line between physical safety, on the one hand, and intellectual or emotional safety, on the other hand, will not always be clear or easy to administer, but doubts must always be resolved in favor of freedom of expression, even against claims of unsafety, because it is far too easy to argue that safety is being endangered in ambiguous circumstances. For example, one professor has talked about "the violence of the word" -- a metaphorical concept that could spell the end of controversial speech on campus. I don't doubt that some people really do feel subjectively unsafe when their conventional wisdom and deeply felt worldviews are challenged, but freedom of expression is too valuable to surrender to subjective feelings. Before speech may be stifled in the name of safety, rigorous objective standards should have to be met.

Freedom of dissent on many university campuses is quickly becoming an endangered species. Many constituent groups support free speech "for me but not for thee." Ideas that they express come within the ambit of free expression, but opposing ideas that make them feel unsafe are now included in the amorphous category of "harassment."

The real world into which students graduate is not always a safe place. Students must be prepared to face the cruel realities of obnoxious views that make them feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and other awful "isms" still exist in many parts of our own country and in the world. We have the right to try to defeat these pernicious and dangerous ideas in the marketplace. But we cannot censor them in the real world. Nor should we try to protect our students from them as they prepare to enter that world. Instead, members of the university community must learn the best ways to respond to ideas they detest within the framework of a free and open marketplace.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School. This article originally appeared in the commencement issue of The Crimson.

Comment on this item

21 Reader Comments

David Ashton • Aug 12, 2015 at 17:00

A wise and balanced statement, with which Norman Finkelstein could agree.

Reply->

Celsius • May 31, 2015 at 09:44

The good professor makes all the good points, but this anti-intellectualism has been going on at universities for a long time. He has been part of the purge of conservatives on university campuses. I, too, long for the wonderful interchange of ideas pre-1970's, but the progressives have destroyed what classic liberals and conservatives built over a good amount of time. It will take a very long time to correct this if it is even possible.

Reply->

Carl • May 29, 2015 at 19:56

Professor Dershowitz and I are about the same age. We were brought up to think on our feet, question decisions we were not satisfied with and to be able to speak our minds. Our universities used to be the places where those traits were admired and encouraged, but those days have ceased to exist. It is one of the main reasons our country is falling behind the rest of the world in math & sciences. It all started with our government cow towing to the Muslims and other special interest groups who refuse to accept criticism and expect special treatment while living off of our money and our hospitality.

Reply->

Marcos Israel • May 29, 2015 at 05:57

There is a huge difference between being a very small minority as Jews are in the world, and being an impressive 20% of world's population, dominating 57 countries all over the world and trying to conquer the rest of it.

The fear before a dominant and imperialistic religion is absolutely justified. The fear before Jews is defamatory, the kind of hoax that constitutes the base of anti-Semitism.

Prof Allan M Dershowitz's article "Universities Should be Unsafe For Political Correctness" is a passionate effort to prepare the fertile grounds for anyone to be wise and make the brain cells empty themselves of their conditioning.

Prof Dershowitz's words remind us of J. Krishnamurti -- a great twentieth century philosopher. Krishnamurti observes: "Do you know what intelligence is? It is the capacity, surely, to think freely, without fear, without formula, so that you begin to discover for yourself what is real, what is true; but if you are frightened, you will never be intelligent. Most of us as we grow older, become frightened -- we are afraid of living, afraid of losing a job, afraid of tradition, afraid of what the neighbors or what the husband or wife would say, afraid of death...and where there is fear there is no intelligence."

America has always stood for secular, democratic, rational values. Its spirit never deviating from the scientific viewpoint probes into human within and without. There has always been atmosphere in America conducive to innovative research. It is why great caliber from all nationalities flock to this land of promise, opportunities and individual growth.

However, the same spirit in American academia looks to be counting its last breaths. The academia looks to be spiritually dried up and wants no one to add fuel to the fire of the war of ideas. All this is being done so that students from certain communities should not say "I am feeling unsafe."

If universities begin to run on age-old notions and ideas, the result is, what G B Shaw says: "Take care to get what you like, or you will be forced to like what you get." What is then the difference between ISIS moral police and American Academia, that stands unwavering to protest politically incorrect speakers?

Reply->

Alan Williams • May 29, 2015 at 01:56

Political correctness was invented by Vladimir Lenin to give him the trump card in any arguments with his party enemies before the revolution. It was part of the Frankfurt School ideology in the 1920s & they took it to the USA in the 30s to escape Adolf Hitler. There it infected academia & Hollywood. It is totalitarian & a freedom annihilating weapon.

Reply->

Lon W. • May 28, 2015 at 22:15

I think this article is going to drip like water off of a slicker. Am 54 years and have seen it change. Am not sure that the majority of students coming out of the American educational system are able to think independently anymore. This is a shame to me.Maybe at higher levels of learning, yet from what I have been seeing and reading, no.This is a well written article professor.Regards.

Reply->

Terryl Delaney • May 28, 2015 at 20:31

Colleges and universities were originally created to be an open forum for the exploration, exchange, and debate of ideas that have and will shape our world. But it appears that liberals are not able to prevail in most of those debates without shaming their opponents with political correctness and hiding behind the now popular "unsafe" mantra. This is nothing less than shameless manipulation in the quest for power.

Reply->

AmericanMom • May 28, 2015 at 20:24

From what I experienced as a college student and from what I have been reading lately -- the ones complaining about "feeling safe" and such are the very elements who are making campuses less safe for all and especially for Jewish students.

Many Muslims tend to get "insulted" by everything and scream "Islamophobia" about any free speech that they do not like.

Yet the well funded Muslim organizations (and leftists) on campus have made it nearly impossible for anyone supporting Israel (or just Jewish) to feel comfortable on most college campus arenas in this country.

For instance, recently both at UCLA and Stanford, Jewish students were interrogated in ways that can only be considered anti-Semitic by student organizations and were initially denied entrance to positions that they were qualified for because they were Jewish.

The fact that every year the BDS and other similar groups wage war on Israel in very aggressive and hostile ways, and that faculty and professors actually join in, has created a situation of "hate speech" rather than "free speech" and has made many students who do not share in this opinion uncomfortable and stressed. This is a unacceptable.

What has also become crystal clear over the decades is that the hatred and incitement towards Israel has nothing at all to do with Palestinian rights and everything to do with anti-Semitism. Why do I say this?

Well, when Palestinians are killed by Syrians and are treated badly by Muslims in various parts of the Muslim world you do not hear these groups say a word in their defense or try and condemn those responsible. In addition, while human rights violations against Muslims and killing of Muslims have sky rocketed thanks to ISIS, Iran and other Muslim organizations and states -- still not one word of complaint from all the BDS types.

They just keep at it year after miserable year complaining about the only democracy in the Middle East. They have shown their true colors and the color is black with Arabic lettering.

Reply->

elaine AmericanMom • May 29, 2015 at 20:23

Here in Australia we are experiencing the same thing.

Our schools and universities are mostly occupied by left-leaning teachers and lecturers, and "woe betide" anyone who stands up against their point of view. Guest speakers that are known to be conservative are harassed and verbally abused on entering these premises, and usually have to be protected by minders. Our universities are being "dumbed" down, with the result that our standing in the world of excellence has plummeted in recent years.

The support for Israel has also taken a nasty turn, with some Jewish schools now employing guards at the entrance to protect pupils. This attitude runs parallel to the left teaching in schools and universities, and urged on by journalists who are sympathetic to that point of view.

Thank goodness we have a Prime Minister who still supports Israel, and an education Minister who is doing his best to correct years of socialist doctrine.

Reply->

John Burruto • May 28, 2015 at 19:30

Most of what we now hear regarding college students reporting that they feel unsafe at the prospect of the college or student group playing host to a speaker or program who or what is or is believed to be in opposition to currently "correct" ideological positions is students posturing to manipulate and suppress the potential discourse. Are our contemporary students so sensitized, so vulnerable to opposing ideological and political positions that they must demand the equivalent of a huge fainting couch to catch them as the blood rushes from their delicate brains? Are our contemporary college administrators so morally weak and wobbly in their career tracks that they too collapse on to their own fainting couches? Unsafe? Good Lord, what spoiled brats, led by such weak kneed academics.

Reply->

Anana John Burruto • May 31, 2015 at 22:03

Yes " brats". Spoiled brats, children of my generation (well the leftist ones of those born in the fifties and sixties). Hardly raised, pampered, over-protected to idiotic extremes and never taught how to think but what to think. They are taught they are the center of the universe, and their feelings are supreme. Unselfishness is hard to find as everyone is so sensitive and offended and " hurt". Sigh.

Reply->

Kevin Burt • May 28, 2015 at 18:53

I seldom agree with Prof. Dershowitz, but he is right on the mark in this essay.

Political correctness stifles not only speech, but thought. Both will atrophy if not exercised.

Reply->

El Habanero • May 28, 2015 at 16:43

Universities today have become an endless source of mush and group hug teaching where independent thought is frowned upon. God help the grads when they get to the real world and are told that they are wrong. No doubt they will have to have therapy with Dr. Phil! The founders of Oxford etc. must be spinning in their graves.

Reply->

Julian Tepper • May 28, 2015 at 13:55

I do not like "politically incorrect" as the opposite of "politically correct."

Rather, I prefer non-progressive.

Reply->

Ron Julian Tepper • Jul 21, 2015 at 19:46

Surviveably correct.

Survival correctness requires that citizens to be able to recognize the enemy, describe the enemy, and plan to protect against the enemy, regardless of how "offensive" the enemy may find this.

Anything else is nationally suicidal.

Reply->

Dale Spiry Ron • Dec 6, 2016 at 16:24

Since when has the politically correctness been a statement pertaining to an enemy? So now a handicapped person is the enemy?Race is an enemy?Intelligence or the lack of an enemy?Politically correctness is an answer to a culture of acceptable attacks. The bully on the playground or the bully in life. Same thing different setting.The acceptance of bullying in any aspect of any society is unacceptable. This is because everyone has a flaw........we are meant to be flawed.

Reply->

Roland Martin • May 28, 2015 at 13:49

Brain-washing is so "yesterday". In today's vocabulary, bad is good, awesome is pretty much everything, "yesterday' is of no importance.Now feminists use "safe place" to mean don't talk about it; things they simply don't want to hear. They fear brain-washing.If these overly sensitized lovelies really want a "safe place", they should spirit themselves to a green-house, where rare flowers are pollinated and grown (educated?). In the real world "hot-house" flowers bloom quickly, then shrivel and die... also quickly.

Reply->

Hans Gesund • May 28, 2015 at 11:53

I fully agree with Prof. Dersshowitz. He is absolutely correct. The failing is with the colleges and universities. Their police forces are not large enough to deal with the after effects of politically incorrect speech. It has become very easy for various groups to physically attack unpopular speakers, and the police claim, a priori, that they will not be able to guarantee their safety.

We have seen mobs destroy parts of cities after unpopular grand jury or judges' verdicts. It is difficult to blame college or university administrators who want to avoid similar destruction of their campuses.

Unsafe speech cannot exist unless physical safety is assured. That is a job for police. It requires diverting scarce resources to enlarge police forces to a size that will protect free speech, speakers, and the campus.

Good luck with that!!!

Reply->

Ed in North Texas Hans Gesund • May 30, 2015 at 09:01

Hans, the answer to what you describe as the reality of unsafe speech is an engaged student body. Those who are willing to physically threaten speakers and other students are few and generally cowards when faced with opposition which is not committed to ensuring their "safety". Campus police are charged with protecting these special little cupcakes, so they will never be effective in protecting speakers with Leftist proscribed ideas as long as the Leftists are willing to engage in physical altercation. What will protect such speakers are other students willing to physically engage to protect the speakers.

Whether we have become a people most of whom are conditioned to avoid violence at all costs is the question which must be answered.

Reply->

DockyWocky • May 28, 2015 at 11:48

Universities ought to be a lot of things in a normal world, but the very fact that most of them are substantially liberal/progressive reveals the extent to which left-wingers have infiltrated higher education and have it under their control.

They are happily corrupting anyone attending them, and it will take a purge of Inquisition quality to set things straight.

Bahareh Hedayat is a human rights activist who has spent over six years in an Iranian prison for "insulting" Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and for "actions against national security, propagation of falsehoods, mutiny and illegal congregation." Hedayat is the longest serving female prisoner of conscience in Iran.

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.